Is Marc Andre Fleury a HOFer? and if so when did he become one? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Is Marc Andre Fleury a HOFer? and if so when did he become one?

CokenoPepsi

Registered User
Oct 28, 2016
4,968
3,150
To me this is an odd one, I always thought the idea was quite silly but then a few years ago when he was with Vegas the media started to always refer to him as a future hall of famer so I just assume it is a done deal, he does come across as a real nice and friendly guy so that probably helps

Was a good player but I find never really a great one, most of the time he was the Penguins biggest weakness in not having much success after their cup in 2009. Had a good run in Vegas and then won a Vezina in the COVID season the only time he finished top 3 in award voting.

So in your opinion has he done enough to make the hall of fame? When do you think he did enough
 
The Osgood thread turned so toxic I don't want any part of that argument.

But I'd say no. He's not deserving of it even though he's being portrayed as the modern Grant Fuhr.
 
I have some Fleury play by play here...

Cheevers had a chance to get even easier votes (which I used) and that's AS votes. In a time of very weak goaltending league wide (plus a smaller league) and he still was never top-5. Double-dipping on save pct. (already a tough stat) and GSAA is a tough look.

And you're using top-5 finishes for a goalie who had his prime in a 12-team league or whatever versus Fleury who literally played for the 32nd team. And still Cheevers isn't better. What a black eye that is for this argument.

Fleury was only remarked as a bigger choker because of recency bias with a little influence from your general Penguins thoughts...

I can't speak to Cheevers's alleged Smythe runs in '69 and '70...was he actually considered for the Smythe, did we see this? They may well be Smythe runs, I don't know. I've seen every single second of Marc-Andre Fleury's playoff career, every second, so I know the ins and outs. The idea that Fleury cost us more than he won us is preposterous, it's just something people say to gloss over a career that they don't care to remember or because he ended proving that person wrong because they made a claim about a 21 year old goalie with no goalie coach and felt like they had to stick with it or something...

Fleury was or was just about our best player in '07 and '08 (game 5 of the SCF was the best goalie performance I've ever seen). He was very strong in 3 of 4 series in '09, but the shootout against Washington damaged his averaging stats. He shutdown Detroit late in that series in a huge way.

'10 wasn't anything noteworthy one way or the other. Team seemed to run out of steam, like most teams that go to back to back Finals in this era. '11 was without Crosby and Malkin...it didn't matter what Fleury did.

'12 was the all-time **** show series. He didn't stop us - as that was a deeply flawed team. He didn't help us by providing any rock-solidness either. This was a poor one, but that's one of the strangest series in history.

'13 was a big failure by him. His biggest fold. Got replaced by Vokoun in the Isles series.

'14, '15, '16 don't move the needle one way or the other. He was really good in the series against New York in '14 as I recall. That's about all that's worth mentioning...

'17 he was the Smythe favorite early in the Conference Final round. Had a tough game and then Sully went back to Murray.

'18 I had him as the Smythe winner all the way to the Final. I kept a log, the last time Fleury was in 1st for the Smythe was May 31. Then by my next update, he had fallen. He ended in the 3/4 hole with Ovechkin.

'19 is the Ear of God miscarriage of justice. Would have been nice to get a save, but hanging a major power play on a goalie would be a lot.

'21 was really good in the first two series and then the whole team quit somehow against a Montreal team...regardless, he didn't cost them personally. Just some odd coaching choices...

So, '13 was his bottoming out, but to say that he cost us Cup when he didn't finish a series...Vokoun came in and won the first two and then we didn't score any goals in the ECF. So, fine, that's one. And then if you really want to make a point, you can hang that wacky '12 series on him...sure, whatever. But the charge that's made here is fraudulent.

As for him being a HOFer, as a Penguin - no. But he added a good bit to his resume with Vegas. He took an expansion team to the Final. It's a shame about the bad call vs San Jose the next year, maybe there's even more there...but if it's even a little bit close, he's going to get in because he is universally loved around the game, he's a great ambassador for it, etc. He's the anti-Barrasso. And frankly, he's better than Barrasso and a lot of folks use him as the line. Fleury was a better Penguin, and he added to his career post-Pittsburgh...so, there's a case to be made...
 
What's the argument Luongo > Fleury?

My Best-Carey

luongo peaked significantly higher

in a seven season peak, luongo was a top three goalie four times. due to bad timing he never won the vezina, like fleury did, but fleury never hit a level close to 2007 luongo, who finished second for the hart behind crosby’s 120 pt season.

i can tell you, in 2008 luongo became a father and while still a superstar never was that good again. i think at his best fleury maybe approached off-peak 2009 to 2011 luongo.
 
He’s third in all-time wins atm, within firing distance from Roy. His career is long and successful with some really memorable moments. Denying Lidstrom to tie the game up in the dying seconds of 2009 game 7 is one of those immortal goalie moments. And yes, he’s popular as a personality, which helps.

Was never really regarded as one of the very best goalies in the game and I get why many are on the fence with him as a HoF candidate, but his style was more entertaining than Lundqvist and Price.

Yeah, the finals run with Vegas plus the Vezina is what seals the deal for him.
 
People judge goalies' way to harshly. MAF is a HOF, at least in my book. Still adding to his resume too. Roy, Hasek and Brodeur really skewed people's expectations. I'd put him in before Luongo. But at the end of the day, I'd probably put them both in. Belfour is in, even with off ice and locker room issues.
 
The Hall has admitted plenty of guys who weren't necessarily the best players at their position but played at a high level for a long time. I'm not sure why it wouldn't do the same for goalies (though I guess Joseph's absence means it doesn't like doing so).

Fleury has always had his flaws, but he's had exceptional longevity as a goalie, was a strong regular season goalie for most of his long career, and despite his abysmal 2010-2014 playoff stretch, he's had some memorable playoff performances as well (the 2008 and 2018 finals runs, the 2017 Cup run). He probably deserves to be in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guttersniped
The Hall has admitted plenty of guys who weren't necessarily the best players at their position but played at a high level for a long time. I'm not sure why it wouldn't do the same for goalies (though I guess Joseph's absence means it doesn't like doing so).

Fleury has always had his flaws, but he's had exceptional longevity as a goalie, was a strong regular season goalie for most of his long career, and despite his abysmal 2010-2014 playoff stretch, he's had some memorable playoff performances as well (the 2008 and 2018 finals runs, the 2017 Cup run). He probably deserves to be in.
I think the longevity is definitely the key for him. It's a position that many players flicker in and then right back out at. For him to at his worst still be a starter through his career is something many modern goalies can't say. Look at the league now. There's some long tenured names, but not many that stayed as starters. Or won cups
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guttersniped
The Osgood thread turned so toxic I don't want any part of that argument.

But I'd say no. He's not deserving of it even though he's being portrayed as the modern Grant Fuhr.
Fuhr has 5 rings. No comparison between these guys.

I think he squeaks in because people love him so much. But not sure he ever had the consistency to merit HOF status. Though, I say this as a disgruntled Pens fan who watched Flower piss away a handful of playoff runs from 2010-2015.
 
He'll definitely get in, as already said the Vezina likely made it a lock. I wouldn't have him in but he hung around for a long time and is very well liked.
 
Yes.

When did he become one? Good question. It's definitely not in Pittsburgh. He needed more. It's either after the final run in Vegas in year 1 of expansion, or a cpl years later when he won the Vezina.

For anyone still on the fence, and who needs a 3rd milestone - he's 10 career wins behind Patrick Roy for #2 all-time. When he passes him, that's just an extra confirmation of his spot.

He's technically also very high on the all-time career playoff wins, I didn't realize he was that high. But tied with Fuhr for #3 all-time at 92 wins. Can't imagine he has enough mileage left to pass Brodeur at #2 (113), but he should win a few more games to be sole owner of #3 all time for career playoff wins.
 
He probably would've been just based on his wins and longevity, but what clinched it was the Vezina.
The Jennings afterward also helps.
His Vezina win is marred by being benched twice in those same playoffs and later traded in the offseason. How many Vezina winners had that happen?

He'll make it because he's accumulated the numbers and has a great smile. Based on the HOF's strict guidelines toward goalies, he shouldn't make it. But they'll make an exception for him.
 
His Vezina win is marred by being benched twice in those same playoffs and later traded in the offseason. How many Vezina winners had that happen?
Why would this mar his Vezina win?
Are the Vezina wins of goalies whose teams don't make the playoffs in the first place marred?
 
He'll definitely get in, as already said the Vezina likely made it a lock. I wouldn't have him in but he hung around for a long time and is very well liked.
I know it's a regular season award, but being unceremoniously benched multiple times in the playoffs and later dumped after the regular season Vezina looks bad.

The award should have gone to Vasilevskiy anyway.
 
He's the anti-Barrasso. And frankly, he's better than Barrasso and a lot of folks use him as the line. Fleury was a better Penguin, and he added to his career post-Pittsburgh...so, there's a case to be made...
Barrasso > Fleury. Barrasso has five top three Vezina seasons. Fleury just the one (when he won it). Playoffs it is Barrasso. That being said, I think both should get in.

My Best-Carey
 
Why would this mar his Vezina win?
Are the Vezina wins of goalies whose teams don't make the playoffs in the first place marred?
How many goalies won the Vezina despite missing the playoffs? There can't be many. He'd probably be better off missing the playoffs that year honestly.
 
absolutely not IMO, HHOVG.

He has 1 HOF quality season.

He has 1.5 Cups as a starter (being generous). 1 Cup he was fully replaced by Murray and in the 2nd Cup he had zero ECF or SCF wins after getting replaced again.

He cost the Penguins Cups with his terrible playoff performances. His 4 playoff sv% following the '09 Cup were .891, .899, .834, .883. Overall he has a career playoff GSAA of -23.4

Only 1x AS-2, 0x AS-1. 3,5,6,10 sv% Top 10 and 3,3,8,9 GAA Top 10.

But he racked up a boatload of wins playing behind Crosby and Malkin for a decade and the media loves him so he's going in the HOF 1st or 2nd ballot.
 
absolutely not IMO, HHOVG.

He has 1 HOF quality season.

He has 1.5 Cups as a starter (being generous). 1 Cup he was fully replaced by Murray and in the 2nd Cup he had zero ECF or SCF wins after getting replaced again.

He cost the Penguins Cups with his terrible playoff performances. His 4 playoff sv% following the '09 Cup were .891, .899, .834, .883

Only 1x AS-2, 0x AS-1. 3,5,6,10 sv% Top 10 and 3,3,8,9 GAA Top 10.

But he racked up a boatload of wins playing behind Crosby and Malkin for a decade and the media loves him so he's going in the HOF 1st or 2nd ballot.
Pretty much. He's an "accumulator" like so many players this board deems unworthy of the HOF.

The debate is "whether" he should make it. He'll most certainly get inducted.
 
I know it's a regular season award, but being unceremoniously benched multiple times in the playoffs and later dumped after the regular season Vezina looks bad.

The award should have gone to Vasilevskiy anyway.
I agree but I imagine that the trophy sealed it. Win totals, a Vezina, and being generally very well liked will get him in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Ad

Ad